ISLAM v. WILKINSON (2021)

Shafiqul Islam, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the decision and order of the immigration judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief. Because Islam does not substantively challenge the BIA's dismissal of either his CAT claim or his claim that the IJ violated his due process rights, he has abandoned those claims. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).

Although Islam argues that the IJ lacked sufficient justification to require that he provide reasonably available evidence in support of his application and, alternatively, that the IJ erroneously determined that such evidence was reasonably available, he did not raise these arguments before the BIA, and we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 588 (5th Cir. 2011); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Islam fails to show that the denial of asylum was unsupported by substantial evidence. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). He, therefore, necessarily also fails to show that he was entitled to withholding of removal. See Yang, 664 F.3d at 588-89.

The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM:*